Download Laurent Pernot: La Rhétorique dans l`Antiquité (Le livre de poche

Rhetorical Review 3:1 (February 2005)
12
_____________________________________________________________________________
Laurent Pernot:
La Rhétorique dans l’Antiquité
(Le livre de poche; Références 553; Inédit; Antiquité)
Paris: Librairie Générale Française, 2000
351 pages (bibliography; appendices; indices)
ISBN: 2-253-90553-4
Price: €6.40
La Rhétorique dans l’Antiquité is a concise history of ancient rhetoric intended for a general
readership. It opens with a preface followed by six main chapters, the titles of which mostly
refer to different periods of Greco-Roman history: La rhétorique avant la rhétorique; La
révolution sophistique; Le moment athénien; La globalisation hellénistique; Rome, romanité,
romanisation; and L’Empire, ou l’innovation dans la tradition.1 An epilogue, entitled L’héritage
de la rhétorique gréco-romaine, rounds off the first part of the book. In the second part, Pernot
presents a systematically arranged glossary of rhetorical terms: Thesaurus. Le système de la
rhétorique, along with a chronological chart, bibliography, and four indices (of proper names, of
subjects, and of Greek and Latin words, respectively).
In the preface (pp. 5-12), Pernot states that his aim is to present the history of rhetoric in GrecoRoman antiquity with emphasis both on the practice and the theory of rhetoric within various
social contexts over time. In an excursus to the preface, Pernot demonstrates how rhetoric,
which in many ways suits the modern and post-modern mindset, has become an indispensable
approach in many fields within the humanities, not only in the study of antiquity.
The first chapter, “Rhetoric before Rhetoric” (pp. 13-23), takes up the earliest evidence for
the rhetorical art as represented in the speeches in Homer. By letting his characters speak,
Homer reveals the inherent qualities of each character, as well as the effectiveness of their
words. Furthermore, Homer’s work is seen as demonstrating an awareness of rhetoric – in terms
of a technical vocabulary – already in the early part of the 1st millennium BC. In outlining the
history of rhetoric in the following centuries, Pernot speaks of a gradual development of
democracy in Athens. In this context I would like to call attention to the Norwegian scholar,
Mona Renate Ringvej, who in a recent study convincingly argues that Athenian democracy was
fully fledged already from 508 BC.2 Ringvej sees this reflected in, for example, the
deliberations of the Argives in Aeschylus’ Suppliants.3
The second chapter of the book takes up “The Sophistic Revolution” (pp. 24-41), beginning
with Corax and Tisias. Focussing on Gorgias, Pernot discusses the main tenets of the sophists
regarding the art of rhetoric as well as their impact on contemporary Athenian society. With
Alcidamas as his point of departure, Pernot in an excursus argues against Edward Schiappa,
1
Below, the French titles are translated into English by the reviewer.
Mona Renate Ringvej, Interpretation of a political idea. The radical democracy of 508-462 BC, Acta
humaniora 185 (Oslo: Unipub, 2004).
3
Ringvej, ibid., pp. 239-261.
2
____________________________________________________________________________
© Rhetorical Review
http://www.nnrh.dk/RR/index.html
Rhetorical Review 3:1 (February 2005)
13
_____________________________________________________________________________
who proposed that Plato was the first to coin the word ‘rhetoric’,4 and against Thomas Cole,
who saw Plato and Aristotle as the inventors of rhetoric proper.5
The first part of chapter three, “The Athenian Era” (pp. 42-81), concerns the role of rhetoric
in the civic life of classical Athens, specifically in judicial, political, and ceremonial contexts,
and compares the careers of Isocrates and Demosthenes. In an excursus, Pernot discusses the
genesis and relevance of the canon of the ten orators. The remaining part of the chapter takes up
the teaching of rhetoric, The Rhetoric to Alexander, Aristotle, Plato, and the interchange
between philosophy and rhetoric, which, in Pernot’s view, does not necessarily involve a
conflict.
In the fourth chapter, on “The Hellenistic Globalisation” (pp. 82-114), Pernot starts out with
a discussion of the main achievements of Hellenistic rhetoric: the theories and systems within
the fields of style, argumentation (i.e. stasis theory), and delivery. He then goes on to describe
how political rhetoric flourished in the Hellenistic world – basing his discussion mostly on
epigraphical evidence and referring, in an excursus, to Louis Robert’s works on numismatics
and inscriptions.6 Finally Pernot discusses the role of rhetoric in the different schools of
philosophy.
In chapter five, “Rome, ‘Romanness’, Romanisation” (pp. 115-169), Pernot compares the
very basis for rhetoric in republican Rome with that in democratic Athens, pointing in particular
to the Roman emphasis on the speaker’s solemnity and authority (gravitas and auctoritas), and
to the main rhetorical contexts of senate, assemblies, courts, and funerals. A chronological
presentation of famous orators follows, beginning with Menenius Agrippa (494 BC) and paying
particular attention to Marcus Tullius Cicero. This section includes a discussion of how the
Romans appropriated Greek rhetoric and began developing a technical rhetorical vocabulary of
their own. In an excursus Pernot also gives examples of the various uses of humour in Cicero’s
speeches. In the last section, on Cicero’s contemporaries, Pernot mentions Hortensia, the
daughter of the Roman orator Quintus Hortensius, and discusses the absence of female speakers
in antiquity. Here (p. 169), Pernot points out the need for a study of how male writers make
female characters speak. At the end of the chapter, Pernot describes how rhetoric developed, in
theory and practice, through the Hellenistic and the Roman republican eras to become a pillar of
Greco-Roman culture.
Chapter six, “The Empire, or Innovation within Tradition” (pp. 170-263), is concerned with
the period of the pagan empire 27 BC-AD 305. Pernot first surveys various views of rhetoric
expressed during the first hundred years or so of the Roman Empire – some observers seeing
decay, others a renaissance. The problem is, according to Pernot, that the contemporary
observers tended to compare the rhetoric of their own time with that of earlier periods, thus
paying no heed to the fact that the use of rhetoric is always context dependent. Pernot gives
much space to presenting both the teaching of rhetoric within the general framework of liberal
education and the methods of teaching rhetoric: both progymnasmata and declamations are seen
by Pernot as a means of preparation for real life. The subsequent presentation of the rhetorical
theory of the period focusses on Quintilian and on Hermogenes’ On Types of Style. A short
section treats the notion of the emperor as a paragon of rhetorical skill: Pernot sees the
emperor’s habit of inspiring and consoling his subjects by way of speech as a clear indication of
the importance attached to rhetoric in this period. After considering evidence for the use of
speeches in the courts, in the Roman senate, and in the city assemblies of the empire, Pernot
turns to the overall importance of panegyric, basing his discussion on the two treatises
4
Edward Schiappa, “Did Plato coin rhetorike?”, American Journal of Philology 111 (1990), pp. 457-470.
Thomas Cole, The origins of rhetoric in ancient Greece, Ancient society and history (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1991).
6
E.g., Louis Robert, Études de numismatique grecque (Paris: Collège de France, 1951), p. 36, n. 1.
5
____________________________________________________________________________
© Rhetorical Review
http://www.nnrh.dk/RR/index.html
Rhetorical Review 3:1 (February 2005)
14
_____________________________________________________________________________
attributed to Menander Rhetor. There follows a presentation of the period’s well-known orators,
both Roman (Pliny, Fronto, Apuleius, Panegyrici Latini) and Greek (leading figures of the
Second Sophistic, as known from the biographies of Philostratus, Dio, Favorinus, Lucian,
Cassius Longinus, and, in an excursus, Aelius Aristides). The last section of the chapter deals
with the influence of rhetoric on literature and includes examples mainly from poetry (Ovid)
and philosophy (consolations).
This is where Pernot ends his history of ancient rhetoric, and where I felt somewhat
disappointed. Would that Pernot had continued his exposition to include the two and a half
centuries starting with Emperor Constantine! Pernot, however, takes the emergence of
Christianity as his stopping point. As he reminds us, in the epilogue on “The Heritage of GrecoRoman Rhetoric” (pp. 265-277), Greco-Roman ‘pagan’ rhetoric was essentially concerned with
producing arguments and dealing with conflicts in a civil manner. By contrast, doctrinal
Christianity, representing the one and only truth, left little room for argumentation – albeit the
church fathers certainly made use of rhetorical techniques. The last section of the chapter
presents a selection of modern scholarship, mainly French, within the field of Greco-Roman
rhetoric.
The second part of the book opens with a chapter on “Thesaurus. The rhetorical system” (pp.
279-301). This is a presentation of the technical Greco-Roman vocabulary related to the
different parts of speech production. The four indices of nomina, of res, and of Greek and Latin
words (pp. 323-349) are linked both to the “Thesaurus” and to the first, historical, part of the
book. There follows a chronological chart, which lists names, titles of anonymous works, and
important events in the history of rhetoric (pp. 303-305), and, finally, a bibliography (pp. 307322), which is arranged in accordance with the chapters of the book.
* * *
Throughout this engaging book, so rich in themes and views, one can feel Pernot’s high regard
for his subject. Pernot avoids negative moral assessments and sees rhetoric as a means of
achieving aims that were considered important in their place and time. Whereas Manfred
Fuhrmann, in Die antike Rhetorik (1984, p. 29), disdainfully referred to Anaximenes as an
uncreative procurator of slick, opportunistic rhetoric, devoid of moral values,7 Pernot (p. 62)
sees in Anaximenes’ Rhetoric a systematisation of earlier and contemporary rhetoric as well as a
method for producing elegant and persuasive speeches by avoiding the perils of disorder, the
bizarre, and the lack of inspiration. And whereas Werner Eisenhut, in Einführung in die antike
Rhetorik und ihre Geschichte (1974, p. 77), described panegyrics to the emperor as glorification
of the ideal ruler and as effusive praise of actual and alleged merits,8 Pernot (p. 243) rather sees
this genre as a subtle and refined means of political communication between the emperor and
the higher echelons of society, both military and civilian. For Pernot, the history of GrecoRoman rhetoric is neither a story of flourishing and decay, nor is it confined to Athens and
Rome. Instead, according to Pernot, rhetoric adapted itself to the needs and circumstances of its
practitioners all over the Greek and Roman world.
7
Manfred Fuhrmann, Die antike Rhetorik. Eine Einführung, Artemis Einführungen 10 (München/Zürich:
Artemis, 1984).
8
Werner Eisenhut, Einführung in die antike Rhetorik und ihre Geschichte, Die Altertumswissenschaft.
Einführungen (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974).
____________________________________________________________________________
© Rhetorical Review
http://www.nnrh.dk/RR/index.html
Rhetorical Review 3:1 (February 2005)
15
_____________________________________________________________________________
In addition to the qualities already mentioned, it should be added that the book is written in
easily accessible French. An English translation is forthcoming: Rhetoric in Antiquity, translated
by W. E. Higgins (Catholic University of America Press).
Kyrre Vatsend
The Faculty of Humanities
University of Oslo
P.O. Box 1079 Blindern
N-0316 Oslo
NORWAY
E-mail: [email protected]
Kyrre Vatsend holds a Ph.D. in classical Greek. He wrote his doctoral dissertation on Emperor Julian’s
speech to the Empress Eusebia (Die Rede Julians auf Kaiserin Eusebia. Abfassungszeit, Gattungszugehörigkeit, panegyrische Topoi und Vergleiche, Zweck, Acta humaniora 74 [Oslo: Unipub, 2000]), and
is currently studying the tradition of speeches of thanks in Greco-Roman antiquity.
____________________________________________________________________________
© Rhetorical Review
http://www.nnrh.dk/RR/index.html